Clay Leeds wrote:
> I'd like to respond to David Crossley's message with the hope that it
> will either move along from its DRAFT classification or get changed so
> that it can progress...
Thanks for following up on this. I never know
about posting to multiple mailing lists. That is
why i only sent the original to infrastructure@a.o
and asked people to come here to discuss. Also this
is where most of the previous discussion took place.
Never mind, it is good to have broader feedback.
I will gather the comments from those lists into
the draft proposal.
[snip]
> > [B] Source docs are managed in project SVN
> >
> > The source files for the project's website are held in an SVN
> > repository. These might be XML source for some projects, while others
> > might have simple HTML docs.
>
> Forgive my naiveté here, but is this process different for a project
> like xml-fop, which uses CVS as for version control (i.e., would
> xml-fop and other 'CVS' projects have a corresponding cvs.apache.org)?
> Or is this totally separate from a project's version control, and
> everyone uses svn.apache.org for this stage of the process?
Of course, perhaps i should have used the generic acronym SCM.
Actually it was also deliberate, because Infrastructure
is encouraging projects to migrate to SVN.
Anyway yes, that item [B] represents whatever source control
that the project uses.
[snip]
> With the exception of my one note above (svn.a.o vs. cvs.a.o), the
> above sounds good^H^H^H^H GREAT to me! I hope others will comment on
> this (at least to say "Looks good to me!") so this process can move
> forward, and we can get relieve ourselves of this onerous issue.
>
> Thank you David for writing such a clear and concise proposal!
Thanks. Let us hope that it is a catalyst.
--
David Crossley